Case: 16-11191 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 1 of 23 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-11191 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20576-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ENRIQUE MARTINEZ MATHEWS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (October 30 , 2017) Before HULL, JORDAN, and GILMAN, * Circuit Judges. HULL, Circuit Judge: * Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 16-11191 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 2 of 23 Defendant Enrique Martinez Mathews (“Martinez”) appeals his total 60- month sentence. After careful review of the briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s increases to Martinez’s offense level for (1) alteration and falsification of an “especially probative record” under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(b)(3)(B), and (2) knowing that the victim of the offense was vulnerable under § 3A1.1(b)(1). However, the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked any legal authority to grant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under § 3E1.1. We thus vacate Martinez’s sentence and remand for the district court to decide only the acceptance of responsibility issue and resentence Martinez. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are not in dispute.1 Beginning in 2007, Martinez was employed by the Miami Veterans Affairs Hospital (the “Miami VA”) as a nurse in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (the “SICU”). In August 2014, a 76-year-old veteran who was recovering from heart surgery was in the SICU (the “Patient”). At approximately 7:30 a.m. on September 2, 2014, the attending physician reviewed the Patient’s records and determined that he was stable enough to be transferred to a lower-level-care ward within the Miami VA. At 8:00 a.m. that 1 The facts are taken from the government’s factual proffer and the presentence report (“PSR”), which are virtually identical. At his plea colloquy, Martinez ratified the factual proffer’s accuracy and did not dispute any of the PSR’s facts, and they are thus deemed to be admitted. See United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 832 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 Case: 16-11191 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 3 of 23 morning, Martinez was assigned to care for the Patient. Martinez had no other patients assigned to him that day. In the SICU, all patients are connected to machines that automatically and continuously read and record vital signs, which allows nurses and other medical providers to constantly monitor the patients. Shortly after Martinez assumed responsibility for the Patient’s care, the Patient’s vital signs began to deteriorate— his blood oxygenation, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and heart rate were all fluctuating abnormally. There were also extended periods of time when no vital signs were entered in the computer system, meaning that either the system had been manually deactivated or the cables had been unplugged. For the remainder of the day on September 2, the Patient’s vital signs were either not recorded by the computer system or, if recorded, showed serious degradation. Defendant Martinez ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals